Found another interesting post from Creighton Broadhust of Raging Swan Press (who I posted about a couple of days ago). This is one he did in which he used old school design principles to create Pathfinder characters.
I like the idea! As I said in my Black Gate post about choosing S&W over Pathfinder for my new game, I am still a huge Pathfinder fan and I like a lot about it. So working both approaches into character design appeals to me. (And I updated the post to talk about our first session. We added a complete RPG newbie into the mix).
S&W Complete Rules doesn't use Prerequisites/class minimums. I like Minimums. Of course, I'm the GM and I won't be the one who doesn't get to play the class of their choice if the rolls aren't good enough. But there's something that appeals to me about a class having minimum scores and trying to achieve them.
I probably would let the players move the score around, not roll them straight, which increases the chance of meeting the Minimums. But no point buys.
It was fun having the newly created party buying their supplies. They discussed lanterns vs. torches, how much rope, a 10' pole (they passed), holy water - I told them gear was important in S&W. The fighter originally bought plate. But by the time he got all the other gear he wanted, he had to drop down to chainmail.
S&W Complete Rules doesn't use Prerequisites/class minimums. I like Minimums. Of course, I'm the GM and I won't be the one who doesn't get to play the class of their choice if the rolls aren't good enough. But there's something that appeals to me about a class having minimum scores and trying to achieve them.
I probably would let the players move the score around, not roll them straight, which increases the chance of meeting the Minimums. But no point buys.
Minimums would likely not work to well in Pathfinder, where classes are sufficiently complex that it's common to be able to build effective characters with what are normally the main stat as a dump stat - Dex based martials or archetypes that switch the casting stat for example.
In a simpler build system like AD&D or S&W, the only real cases where the minimums really apply are things like the paladin, where the 17 Cha is mandatory, but not really that useful. All the classes have minimums, but you're not going to build a Str 8 fighter anyway.
It was more than that... Dexterity.. A score of 5 or lower means that the only class you can play is a cleric.
|
In a simpler build system like AD&D or S&W, the only real cases where the minimums really apply are things like the paladin, where the 17 Cha is mandatory, but not really that useful.
In 2nd edition, those minimums were a bit more "useful" with the added sub-class of specialty priests (e.g. a specialty priest of a war god would need a good STR). Specialist wizards had higher minimums as well, but like the paladin, the score needed did not always match the requirement (the enchanter is one of those that made sense, they needed a 16 in CHR for example).
S&W Complete Rules doesn't use Prerequisites/class minimums. I like Minimums. Of course, I'm the GM and I won't be the one who doesn't get to play the class of their choice if the rolls aren't good enough. But there's something that appeals to me about a class having minimum scores and trying to achieve them.
I probably would let the players move the score around, not roll them straight, which increases the chance of meeting the Minimums. But no point buys.
We use stat minimum requirements in S&W (and 3D6 in order).
FWIW, it's included as an optional rule at the top of page 25.
HolmesAndWatson, it's been a long time! Sadly, my internet access has been restricted the past few weeks, so I've missed some of the fun.
If you don't mind, I'm going to dump some various opinions and explanations here. No criticism toward what other people do, but perhaps a small bit of reasoning.
Before I start, I'll say this: The "Good Old Days" of the 1st Age of RPG's were good more on a meta-level than a rules level. As the Wheel of RPG Time turns, and Ages come and go, we see these contrasts wax and wane in a little dance, ever destined to come full circle back to where we started.
5th Edition, which I like from an objective point of view, is something I will never subjectively involve myself in simply because I like my options too much. While it's great for new players to get into, and I certainly don't hate it (unlike 4th, which can die in a fire), from my perspective it seems to be a simplistic, streamlined version of the game I'd play only for a one- or two- session minicampaign.
As far as I'm concerned any 'looseness' with the rules claimed to be an advantage is missing the point of the more rules-capable systems out there. The DM has Rule Zero, and even the basic rules of 3.5 and PF are willing to hand out free 'bonuses' to creative characters. Having more options gives you more options, and having less takes them away.
I will always prefer having more options, unless there is a pressing need not to. In such situations where it's easier to get new players into it, or I want a faster, more streamlined game due to time constraints, I'll happily give it a go.
---
RANDOM ROLLS
I haven't ever used random rolls for stats in my games in over a decade. And I never will.
This a relic of the Dark Ages, and be consigned to a museum. In the real world it's analogous to those old stockades and torture implements used by the Inquisition.
Maybe it's a personal thing, but I think players should have equality of opportunity. Staring out, they are all given the same rules and the same options to choose from, and if they end up in vastly different places, well, it was their own decisions that led them there, and that's perfectly fine.
Random rolls can be fun for short sessions where people want the 'Old School Experience' for a time, and assuming no one gets totally shafted with their rolls, it might be entertaining. But at some point, the shadow of Envy will loom over the party, as the have-not grumble and complain about the haves. And it will happen, because there is a bell curve to these things, and the guy who gets high stats in what he needs will invariably be looked upon with jealousy by the one who didn't. It's best the game doesn't progress this far, instead the players keeping it to a short campaign where they can have that Old School Experience to remind themselves how good they have it now.
It's a bit like a Renaissance Fair, really. You enjoy some of the creative things about the past and some stuff inspired by it, but in the end you can go home and not have to wipe with a curved stick or piece of corn cob, and don't brush your teeth with a twig or hike to work or die of dysentery or catch scurvy due to low access to fruits in your diet.
---
For a similar reason, I don't like the 'minimum stat requirements'. Sure, that made sense in the past where some stats really didn't impact your abilities that much. But in modern times where the ability modifiers are the bread-and-butter of your class abilities, the 'stat minimums' already exist in a softer, less glaringly obvious form. Yes, you *could* play an 11 Int Wizard, but you're going to be behind on getting your second-level spells and if anything you cast has a saving throw, well, gods help you.
But if someone wants to go ahead and be sub-optimal because that's just the character they want to play? Well, they can still do it, more or less.
Furthermore, it turns the 'nonstandard' core classes (like Barbarian and Monk and Paladin and such) into 'miniature Prestige Classes' where you have to have those minimums even to enter. No one can be terrible at their job, but when some of those lag behind the basic core classes--despite requiring better stats--you something is wrong with your system.
People can implement this in their games if they wish, but it doesn't make since in a 3.5 / PF type setting where such requirements are already functionally baked into the ruleset as part of the math.
Hi Steve - welcome!
I didn't mention the table for S&W minimums since it felt to me like it was just a mention of the Original Edition ones and the minimum for XP bonus was the only thing listed with the class descriptions.
But fair point.
3d6 in order - that's a tough one. Any rerolling or other way to replace a low score? Just curious.
Nah, but in S&W it hardly matters (other than qualifying for the "good" classes). I don't think it works very well in a game like Pathfinder.
I also tend to view PC creation as part of the game - the more modern style is to come up with you character concept before playing. Obviously, I wouldn't suggest the "ironman" method in a group with that culture.
Nah, but in S&W it hardly matters (other than qualifying for the "good" classes). I don't think it works very well in a game like Pathfinder.
I also tend to view PC creation as part of the game - the more modern style is to come up with you character concept before playing. Obviously, I wouldn't suggest the "ironman" method in a group with that culture.
Maybe not in S&W, but it definitely mattered back in AD&D.
Str3d6
Int3d6
Wis3d6
Dex3d6
Con3d6
Cha3d6Random example produces a not half bad set of stats, but unplayable in AD&D. 5 or lower Con could only be an illusionist. Illusionist needs a 15 Intelligence.
Even beyond that, the Con penalty will be pretty brutal given the smaller hit die sizes back then.
3d6 in order wasn't recommended in AD&D. The more restrictive the stat requirements are, the more generous you need to be.
For the record, when I play that I prefer using 4D6 drop the lowest - I still retain the order most of the time, though allow myself to swap a pair if I feel like it.
I quite like the "roll twelve PCs ironman style and choose one" method too, but the rest of my group are quite opposed for some reason.
Nah, but in S&W it hardly matters (other than qualifying for the "good" classes). I don't think it works very well in a game like Pathfinder.
I also tend to view PC creation as part of the game - the more modern style is to come up with you character concept before playing. Obviously, I wouldn't suggest the "ironman" method in a group with that culture.
Maybe not in S&W, but it definitely mattered back in AD&D.
Str3d6
Int3d6
Wis3d6
Dex3d6
Con3d6
Cha3d6Random example produces a not half bad set of stats, but unplayable in AD&D. 5 or lower Con could only be an illusionist. Illusionist needs a 15 Intelligence.
Even beyond that, the Con penalty will be pretty brutal given the smaller hit die sizes back then.
See the problem I have with this type of character creation has nothing to do with whether characters are "balanced" with each other. It is instead that, at least in my experience, the bad guys do not adhere to that same statistical core. Unless a GM is rolling all the monsters and NPCs in this same manner, the PCs are going to run into bad guys that would be considered "level appropriate" that are built with a baseline of way better statistics, and that sucks. I mean I can even remember baddies from the blue box that were "level appropriate" that would wipe the proverbial floor with PCs that were forced to adhere to the 3d6 in order, and maybe even the 3d6 reroll ones and put 'em where you want 'em. There's a shadow of the Gygaxian legacy that says that's how he wanted it. I mean, the phrase "Gygaxian trap" is there for a reason. In that regard I do much prefer some of what the "rules heavy" systems offer. I think I've said this before, too, but even in a rules heavy system that gives players the idea that everything they come up against should be a "leveled challenge" I like to throw an ancient dragon at them, or a mob of level one goblins (so they can listen to the whistle of their blades as they decapitate goblin heads, or the sweet sizzling of fire magic as it destroys whole swaths of lesser foes). Otherwise players tend to get into a mindset that they can handle everything that comes at them, and then the world ceases to have even the dimmest shade of realism.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect this reflects the reality of the old school fairly well - generate characters with 3d6 in order, then reject them or watch them die off until you get one with good stats to try to keep alive.
I've always been fond of the old Traveller rules, where a bad die roll could result in your death... during character generation.
|
|
Having more options gives you more options, and having less takes them away.
I have to really disagree with this.
I'm sure your experience (or perception of the game) has led you to that conclusion, but it has been my experience that in a more rules heavy system, where there is a rule for everything, the players (on both sides of the screen) tend to look solely to the character sheets for available options, and thus if an option is not written or somehow listed on the character sheet, that option is simply not available to the character. With a system open to more interpretation, the options available to the players are limited only by the player's own imagination, and not constrained by some completely arbitrary number on a sheet of paper.
Having more options gives you more options, and having less takes them away.I have to really disagree with this.
I'm sure your experience (or perception of the game) has led you to that conclusion, but it has been my experience that in a more rules heavy system, where there is a rule for everything, the players (on both sides of the screen) tend to look solely to the character sheets for available options, and thus if an option is not written or somehow listed on the character sheet, that option is simply not available to the character. With a system open to more interpretation, the options available to the players are limited only by the player's own imagination, and not constrained by some completely arbitrary number on a sheet of paper.
Welcome back Arturius!
I've pondered digging a bit more deeply into this debate, as I've been on both sides of it in the past year. I originally favored 'more options gives you more options,' but with my recent delve into an old school approach, has swung me more around to Elf's side, that basically, anything is in play in an open ended, less rules system. With the GM really being the determinant of what goes. If the GM disallows a lot of stuff, then they are reducing options. If they are pretty broad minded, then they are expanding them beyond the rule limitations.
I think both sides can validly establish their view. The Player's imagination and the GM's permissiveness are the core of the 'rules light' assertion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More options DOES give you more options, but only when the system makes it clear that these are extras not limitations.
When the game then goes on to have feats made for such mundane things as tying your shoes... You lose that.
I actually took the entire shoe-tying feat tree, and just recently achieve shoe-tying mastery. :P ;)
More options DOES give you more options, but only when the system makes it clear that these are extras not limitations.
When the game then goes on to have feats made for such mundane things as tying your shoes... You lose that.
Welcome Kyrt. Nicely said. Which would lead me to assert that it's a case of educating the player and the GM. Which would certainly tie back to Gygax' Role Playing Mastery points. Though I don't have the opportunity to cite anything at the moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One (very early) experience with 3.PF - my rogue PC successfully snuck up behind a goblin, who was watching the battle elsewhere, and the GM gave the goblin his shield bonus to AC because "facing doesn't matter according to the rules". Also, because the goblin was already (technically) part of the battle, he had a slot on the initiative order and so, even though my rogue got the first attack, there was no surprise attack on the part of my rogue because (technically) the goblin wasn't surprised!That same goblin, believing himself to be safely out of melee, is no easier to hit in total surprise from behind than if my dwarf was standing in front of him shouting a warning challenge before engaging in combat.
Really? Yep, really. The goblin even retained his shield bonus against the (theoretical) surprise attack!
That's just dumb. What's the point of the rogue's sneak and hide skills if your opponent's AC remains the same?
Well, if the goblin didnt see you, you were "invisible" thus sneak attack.
This morning's weekly post over at BlackGate.com is RPGing is Storytelling. Which I think in line with Gygax and Arneson's approach.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't had a chance to digest the most recent posts, but welcome to Quark Blast.
And stuff like "magical tea time" and "story stick" is kinda snippy. We've maintained a positive tone, even while disagreeing. Let's keep it that way, please.
The DM for that particular adventure was (and I assume still is) very literal about RAW. And nothing in the rules (RAW) say he's doing it wrong, even though he obviously is.
Uhhhh... As a student of the game, I'm going to have to both agree and disagree with you. If a GM is playing by literal RAW, they are not "doing it wrong." In fact, they are "doing it right." That is, they are following the rules and executing them to the best of their ability in order to maintain fair adjudication for all players. I understand that in the situation you were relating the adjudication of RAW seems absolutely counter-intuitive to how it "should have been." The problem with that, is that you've entered this twilight-zone circular argument that no one will ever win, which occurs all the time on these boards. One side will argue, think about the reality of that situation! Certainly the goblin should not have been getting a shield bonus to AC, because shields. The gamer's answer to those arguments will always be, "because dragons and fireballs." This is not a game based in any recognizable reality that we can set an anchor in and step out from for discussion purposes. I mean, even the descriptions, weights, and damage types of many of the weapons have no basis in human history.
As thejeff said, and I actually mentioned earlier also, this game brings many people for many different reasons. For many players they want to know that the rules will be adjudicated just as they are written, because they understand the rules. For many others (perhaps a great many partakers of this particular thread) the rules are guidelines to advance the story and provide the element of suspense. As a GM myself, I hand-wave and retcon things all the time, because it seems more realistic, or just flat-out makes better narrative sense (in most instances that helps the players, but in some it hinders them). And it is very important for all of us, both the rules-lawyers and the story-stickers, to understand and verbally acknowledge that we are playing the same game. We may not be playing it the same way, but we are absolutely playing the same game.
I forget who it was, but once upon a time, a poster on these boards opened my brain by pointing out that many people have developed their own house-rules and adjustments to the game Monopoly. If someone who plays Monopoly by the rules came to their house and tried to play, they would most likely say, "you're doing it wrong." While the players at said house would certainly disagree, because they've found their adjustments to be the most fun way to play.
In the situation you described earlier, taking away an enemy's shield bonus to AC would definitely fall under house rules, because in Pathfinder there definitely is no such thing as "facing." In my game we use facing sometimes when it suits us, and not at others, when it suits us. Technically, we are the people "doing it wrong," but we're also still playing Pathfinder, and we're having a blast doing it.
TL/DR: playing by the rules is not "doing it wrong." Of course, neither is sweeping away whole swaths of the rules for narrative realism. This game is to be adapted to each individual, specific table. The real problem I've found over the years is finding a group of people to sit at a table that all agree on how things should be done. If you find yourself sitting at one of those tables, relish it, savor it, hold on tight! I had one of those tables once upon a time, and oh did we have lots of fun.
Because I do like to interject Gygax' own thoughts as often as I can (seeing as how that's the point of the thread...). MendedWall's comments reminded me of something I read just recently in 'the other book,' Master of the Game:
However, when these things are added to the equation, we begin to reduce playability as we increase the amount of realism. As previously noted, too complex or complicated a system of any sort will raise the simulation level toward realism but reduce play ability.
It will dispel the suspension of disbelief because of the time and detail demanded, and will likely detract from all other aspects of the game as an entertainment vehicle. The correct balance between realism and playability is very much a matter of group taste, but there is a median level beyond which the vast majority of enthusiasts lose all desire to participate.
Master GMs must be able to discern the proper level of realism and complexity for both their milieu and their players.
Because I do like to interject Gygax' own thoughts as often as I can (seeing as how that's the point of the thread...). MendedWall's comments reminded me of something I read just recently in 'the other book,' Master of the Game:
However, when these things are added to the equation, we begin to reduce playability as we increase the amount of realism. As previously noted, too complex or complicated a system of any sort will raise the simulation level toward realism but reduce play ability.
It will dispel the suspension of disbelief because of the time and detail demanded, and will likely detract from all other aspects of the game as an entertainment vehicle. The correct balance between realism and playability is very much a matter of group taste, but there is a median level beyond which the vast majority of enthusiasts lose all desire to participate.
Master GMs must be able to discern the proper level of realism and complexity for both their milieu and their players.
Masterfully put by the original game master. It seems that this "balance" between realism and play ability is at the crux of many of the arguments I've seen on these boards. Interestingly though, I think if you polled the boards, you'd also find extremely varied definitions of both "realism" and "play ability."
Case in point, for me, play ability means the mechanics enhance my ability to tell a collective story, not bog me down in numbers crunching so microcosmic that my brain oozes out of my ear-holes.
In another Creighton Broadhust post I liked so much I'm going to do a Black Gate post around it, he talked about what 'old school' meant to him. I think he's got a pretty solid approach in wanting to run games with that story-telling, early style of play, with the plethora of customer characterization options and deep combat mechanics of Pathfinder. That hybrid, that merging, is an approach that works to incorporate what some people think is the best of both gaming systems.
"The rules in Old School games are often much lighter and play is quicker than later editions. For me, I like the rich depth and complexity of systems such as 3.5 and Pathfinder.
I like the customisability of players’ characters (and their enemies) and the tactical options available for combat. I don’t necessarily see this as incompatible with an Old School style of play – it’s just a challenge to marry the two"
Now, if you think options and rules bloat is out of control in Pathfinder (I've commented on that throughout the life of this thread), you aren't necessarily viewing it the same way he is. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Most of us have acknowledged there are merits in both approaches. They can be manipulated (I think it's easier to run a Pathfinder game with old school principles than the other way around).
I was looking through Frog God Games' 'The Lost City of Barakus,' as I hold out hope that the Swords & Wizardry group will want to roam around that mini-campaign after the current adventure wraps up. The following was in a sidebar:
Frog Gods, why can’t you stick to the rules?
Yes, we break the rules (again) in this book. We are assuming (and you know what that does) that you are using the Swords & Wizardry Complete ruleset with this product. Now, there are certainly other OSR rules that can be used to enjoy this adventure, but we like the think we have a pretty good set to take care of your needs.
However, with that said, we break the rules as set down in the Complete rulebook. In this adventure, you will find half-drow, half-orcs, halfling monks, etc. We are strong proponents that story should trump rules. As long as it makes sense! So, we play a little fast and loose with racial restrictions.
If this causes a problem for the Referee, simply use a similar
race to emulate the NPCs found within this adventure.
Now, the S&W rules set is theirs. And Barakus (which was a 3rd Edition classic from Necromancer Games) is theirs. So, they can do anything they want with it, willy-nilly. But I think they approach it exactly the right way.
'Story should trump rules. As long as it makes sense!' Yes. And they offer a simple, self-contained solution for the GM if they don't want to step outside the rules.
It's a little thing, but I think it's deftly done.
Best table I ever played at we had a standing agreement: "Good story trumps rules." "Good" is a very nebulous word, but it was one of the best tables I ever played at because we all seemed to have the exact same idea of what a "good" story was, even if it meant calamitous elements for the PCs. :) Sometimes in a "good" story the main characters find themselves in some pretty precarious and un-heroic situations. :)
|
|
I'm a stickler for the rules myself. And in general, I tend to dislike seeing things like what Frog God Games did in the example above.
That said however, the example in question would be okay for me, because those things would not disrupt the game too much (if at all) if used solely for that adventure. But, and this is if I used S&W as my go-to game, if they started doing this kind of thing on a regular basis, or continued to use what they added seemingly ad-hoc to this module (I say seemingly ad-hoc, but I do not have the module in question, so I don't know how it "added" these things), I would start to question whether or not I wanted to continue to use S&W as my game of choice.
That's not to say I do not add new rules of my own or house-rule things, I just don't like seeing rules added or set aside simply because... you know... "FUN"!
In my over 30 years of experience, the rules have never gotten in the way of the telling of a good story, no matter the system I used.
YMMV.
The DM for that particular adventure was (and I assume still is) very literal about RAW. And nothing in the rules (RAW) say he's doing it wrong, even though he obviously is.Uhhhh... As a student of the game, I'm going to have to both agree and disagree with you. If a GM is playing by literal RAW, they are not "doing it wrong." In fact, they are "doing it right." That is, they are following the rules and executing them to the best of their ability in order to maintain fair adjudication for all players.
The problem is that blindly following RAW without thinking on your part can lead to problems on it's own. Before the Internet without a horde of internet and facebook trolls waiting to pounce on every mistake you admitted to online. Homerule WAS the rule in those days. None of the people I knew that played in the 70's and onward during the AD+D years followed every single rule, and there were some (Weapn vs AC type, and death at Zero HPs, I'm looking at YOU!) that no one followed.
DMs need a slight healthy amount of hubris to be good DMs. And players need to be willing to advance some trust. And tolerance for the fact that no one gets it right all of the timee.
Elf - I'm guessing that, because the module was written for 3rd Edition, then updated for Pathfinder, they kept the half-races in for S&W out of ease of conversion.
I'm mostly a 'follow the rules' for the foundation, but as with most things, there's middle ground. If I change the flying rules mid-game, that's probably not fair to the player. But if I decide that I need an Elven Cleric for something, I'll go with it.
Tim Kask, who was (I think) the second person hired by Gary Gygax (after Rob Kuntz) at TSR and one of the first players and contributors to D&D, says the following in the introduction to the S&W Complete Rules:
For thirty-five years, I have been telling role-playing gamers to ignore rules that they do not like. The essence of RPGing is in the story, not the accomplishment of arbitrary goals and benchmarks. We all take part in creating the story; the GM writes an outline, tots up a list of “plot elements,” and then sets the players loose to fill in the details. This has never changed.
What you hold in your hand are guidelines; this is one set of “rules” that has an internal integrity that makes it work. Is it the only way to
play? Certainly not; from the very beginning of role-playing GMs have
been encouraged to extrapolate and interpret, to make the game their
own. If a given rule does not seem “right” to you, then ignore it!
Or, better still, change it! Make your game or campaign your own. All
GMs need to worry about is keeping a “logical reality” active in their
campaigns; the players rely on that logic to find their way through the
perils and puzzles of the adventure.
The truest test of whether or not you are doing it right has always been
two-fold: are you having fun, and do your players keep showing up every
session? If you can answer yes to either, you’re on the right path. If you can answer in the affirmative to both, you have the “right” of it. From the very conception of RPGing, the whole idea was to have fun. We showed the world a new way to do it, but we never said there was only one way.
I don't go as far as Tim (it's too loosey-goosey for me), but it's certainly very much out of the Dave Arneson/Dave Hargrave approach to the game. And that's pretty much at the roots.
I'm a stickler for the rules myself. And in general, I tend to dislike seeing things like what Frog God Games did in the example above.
This aspect of rules discussion is more GM-oriented. I'll swing it the other way and mention that the very first of Gygax' Steps to Role Playing Mastery is to Know the Rules (as a player). The following is from one of the very first posts in this thread:
1 Study the rules of your chosen role-playing game. Being intimately familiar with the rules structure is essential to understanding what you are doing, and understanding is the foundation of mastery.
He makes the point that simply memorizing a bunch of passages is not sufficient. Memorizing does not mean understanding (I like that phrase). It is not enough to know what is in the rules, but how the components all work together with each other. He discusses the problems faced by the rules writers, such as taking the make believe of dragons and spaceships and making them seem real. Quantification and mechanics must translate into an experience that brings to life the game environment.
As a player, whether the rules are inadequate or overwhelming, you must understand both the rules and the spirit of the game (Step #3). It is this accepted combination that leads to such exasperation with rules lawyers who focus solely on Step 1 and have no use for Step 3.
An adept GM can help overcome player shortcomings in the area of rules knowledge. But if the player consistently makes mistakes with movement or feats during combat rounds, the gameplay will be impacted negatively. Likewise, forgetting that a paladin has smite evil available can be the difference between success and failure. Two players understanding the rules for flanking is going to be much more effective than if only one does. Hard to flank by yourself!
There's certainly some merit in a point of view that says, 'If I take the effort as a player to learn the rules and how to make them work in the game, the GM shouldn't be changing them at a whim!'
Holmes your two posts, on the surface, might seem contradictory, but I don't believe they are. Nor how could they be if Tim Kask was one of the first people hired by Gygax, and Gygax is the one saying players need to know the rules. I think the important thing to remember is that Tim says "ignore the rules they do not like." What I think he's saying there is not "if you read them and think they're silly don't use them." Rather, what I think he means is that someone has: 1) Read the rules; 2) Understood them; 3) Implemented them in a game; 4) Had negative experience with them. Which would, in no way, discount what Gygax is saying about knowing the rules. When both players and GM understand the RAW and how it is to be implemented they can adjust "on the fly" cohesively and collectively. They can say, "that's dumb" in the midst of the game because of their desire to create that "logical reality" that is agreeable to them all. In order to say "that's dumb" in an intelligent way, it requires that they understand how the rules work, and that in whatever situation they've found their characters, in the game, it doesn't fit with their logical reality.
In essence I think both Gygax and Kask would say, know the rules first, then ignore them once you've found they don't work for your table.
|
|
I don't go as far as Tim (it's too loosey-goosey for me), but it's certainly very much out of the Dave Arneson/Dave Hargrave approach to the game. And that's pretty much at the roots.
I guess I took the things EGG said in the 1e DMG and in various Dragon Magazine articles about using the rules and the "dangers" of straying too far from them to heart.
But like I said in the previous post, in over 30 years of gaming, I have never felt constrained by the rules of any of the games/game systems that I have used.
But also note; I have and do add new rules to the game (where as well as when appropriate), and house-rule things (in moderation).
Here is an excerpt from an article by Gary Gygax from issue number 26 of “The Dragon” (June 1979) that I like to reference concerning how EGG felt about straying too far from the rules...
AD&D rectifies the shortcomings of (Original) D&D. There are few grey areas in AD&D, and there will be no question in the mind of the participants as to what the game is and is all about. There is form and structure to AD&D, and any variation of these integral portions of the game will obviously make it something else...
While (Original) D&D campaigns can be those which feature comic book spells, 43rd level Balrogs as player characters, and include a plethora of trash from various and sundry sources, AD&D cannot be so composed. Either a DM runs an AD&D campaign, or else it is something else. This is clearly stated within the work, and it is a mandate which will be unchanging, even if AD&D undergoes change at some future date. While DMs are free to allow many unique features to become a part of their campaign—special magic items, new monsters, different spells, unusual settings—and while they can have free rein in devising the features and facts pertaining to the various planes which surround the Prime Material, it is understood they must adhere to the form of AD&D. Otherwise what they referee is a variant adventure game. DMs still create an entire milieu, populate it and give it history and meaning. Players still develop personae and adventure in realms of the strange and fantastic, performing deeds of derring-do, but this all follows a master plan. The advantages of such a game are obvious. Because the integral features are known and immutable, there can be no debate as to what is correct. A meaningful dialog can be carried on between DMs, regardless of what region they play in. Players can move from one AD&D campaign to another and know at the very least the basic precepts of the game—that magic-users will not wield swords, that fighters don’t have instant death to give or take with critical hits or double damage, that strange classes of characters do not rule the campaign, that the various deities will not be constantly popping in and out of the game at the beck and call of player characters, etc. AD&D will suffer no such abuses, and DMs who allow them must realize this up front. The best feature of a game which offers real form, however, is that it will more readily lend itself to actual improvement—not change, but true improvement Once everybody is actually playing a game which is basically the same from campaign to campaign, any flaws or shortcomings of the basic systems and/or rules will become apparent. With (original) D&D, arguments regarding some rule are lost due to the differences in play and the wide variety of solutions proposed—most of which reflect the propensities of local groups reacting to some variant system which their DM uses in his or her campaign in the first place. With AD&D, such aberrations will be excluded, and a broad base can be used to determine what is actually needed and desired.